It is no secret that ALL tech companies reach a crossroads where implementing new more advanced features also includes abandoning some of the legacy offerings of the past. For Adobe , they sever ties with each full point release of Lightroom. They will not back pedal even one generation which turns out to be 1.5 - 2 years max.

Well, with RAW support at least it's the case. Once Lr 6 is released, No Lr 5.x version will get new RAW support. You can use DNG converter of course, but I'm not interested in using DNG files instead of camera manufacturer RAW files (that's another debate of course...).

Well, with RAW support at least it's the case. Once Lr 6 is released, No Lr 5.x version will get new RAW support. You can use DNG converter of course, but I'm not interested in using DNG files instead of camera manufacturer RAW files (that's another debate of course...).

So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] make sure no-one gets left behind by providing a free utility for those who choose not to upgrade and somehow they are the bad guys. A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.

So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] make sure no-one gets left behind by providing a free utility for those who choose not to upgrade and somehow they are the bad guys. A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.

Exactly right! Adobe goes out of it's way not to force you to update by virtue of DNG, how are they the bad guys? They could do the opposite. You own LR5, you buy a new camera which it doesn't support. There's no DNG. You have to upgrade. And that updated raw that can't work in the older converter is due to the people making the raw! They are the bad guys here.

Exactly right! Adobe goes out of it's way not to force you to update by virtue of DNG, how are they the bad guys? They could do the opposite. You own LR5, you buy a new camera which it doesn't support. There's no DNG. You have to upgrade. And that updated raw that can't work in the older converter is due to the people making the raw! They are the bad guys here.

So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] make sure no-one gets left behind by providing a free utility for those who choose not to upgrade and somehow they are the bad guys. A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.

Don't recall anyone here labeling either mentioned developer as "the bad guy" ... only that ALL software developers place limits on support for proprietary RAW files for new cameras. Some users are always going to experience being left out. While a DNG may be considered a RAW file, not all users are inclined to make the conversions. For very legitimate reasons.

Though Adobe does offer the DNG converter for free, Apple has also offered their last two versions of OS X for free (I'm counting Mavericks that is now on public beta) and has never charged Aperture/iPhoto users for Camera RAW updates.

This comparison does not make either developer a "bad guy" only different in how their users get what they need to work with their images.

So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] ... A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.

Sure, but it's also missing some information. In particular, metadata about focus points is removed, or is no longer usable, in DNG files that are converted from Canon or Nikon raw files. There may be more data missing but I haven't done extensive testing. For those who use the functionality on occasion (I did use it in Aperture), DNG is an inferior solution to the original raw files.

Apple has also offered their last two versions of OS X for free (I'm counting Mavericks that is now on public beta) and has never charged Aperture/iPhoto users for Camera RAW updates.

This is partially true. With OS X, the raw updates do come with the OS. However is is also true that at some point, Apple puts a base version of Aperture you must have to use this raw support. If you are still using Aperture 2.x, even though OS X has support for the latest cameras (or close to it), you can't use them in Aperture 2.x though you can in Aperture 3.5.1.

But in general Apple gives raw updates for Aperture for 1-2 years back, while Adobe stops adding new cameras the day a new major version comes out. You can use DNG but that has the drawbacks as I mentioned above (it strips some OEM metadata that I personally use, and have noticed). I tend to be an early adopter and thus wouldn't stay on an old software version when a new one came out, modulo huge work-stopping bugs, so I may be less angry about this than some

Sure, but it's also missing some information. In particular, metadata about focus points is removed, or is no longer usable, in DNG files that are converted from Canon or Nikon raw files.

What jjj is correctly saying is the raw data is still raw after the conversion which is kind of important. As for the metadata, there should be the ability to store that in the DNG container and the question I'd have is, can other raw converters use that metadata (IOW, is it not proprietary?).

What jjj is correctly saying is the raw data is still raw after the conversion which is kind of important. As for the metadata, there should be the ability to store that in the DNG container and the question I'd have is, can other raw converters use that metadata (IOW, is it not proprietary?).

I don't know for certain. I know that the Canon software reads them (as you'd expect), and Aperture reads them. Same with the Nikon software and Aperture.

What I don't know is whether Apple got access to undocumented information from the camera vendors. It may be that rooting around with exiftool would lend data but I wasn't that curious - I just noticed on some images that I converted to DNG that this info disappeared. That made me wonder what other information may have been stripped, so that concern was sufficient reason for me to not use DNGs.

What I don't know is whether Apple got access to undocumented information from the camera vendors. It may be that rooting around with exiftool would lend data but I wasn't that curious - I just noticed on some images that I converted to DNG that this info disappeared. That made me wonder what other information may have been stripped, so that concern was sufficient reason for me to not use DNGs.

As I explained in another thread recently, the metadata is actually intact (not stripped), but Aperture is not reading it from the DNG. Still, I understand your point about your workflow being broken in this case.

As I explained in another thread recently, the metadata is actually intact (not stripped), but Aperture is not reading it from the DNG. Still, I understand your point about your workflow being broken in this case.

Well you would know Thanks for the clarification.

Hopefully Lightroom gets the ability to view it in the future. I like the functionality, and it seems like all roads are heading in this direction.